Re: oil interests? -- Adilbrand Noblesword's Hall of Warriors

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:31:30 02/28/04 Sat
Author: mt. healthy mountaineer
Subject: Re: oil interests?
In reply to: Xanthor 's message, "Re: oil interests?" on 11:21:48 02/26/04 Thu

well, my original message that I posted yesterday didn't post (lesson: always double-check)

The gist of it was:

Xanthor, you've answered well and although I don't see the dangers you see, your reasoning is thought out and not the shrill stuff you can find posted all over the internet by others.

I do think you are assuming that US control over the Iraqi oil will be maintained over the long run - thus the smarminess factor with people with Bush/Cheney ties (although, to be fair, what Texas politician is not going to have Texas oil connections charge thrown at him when he deals with OPEC? Would California, Alaska and Pennsylvania politicians face these charges or has the TV show "Dallas" permanently changed the political landscape?)

I am assuming that the US will relinquish control over the Iraqi oilfields as soon as possible with as much fanfare as possible for geopolitical reasons. Many of the Muslim countries are watching the dismantling of Afghanistan and Iraq and thinking of the Medieval crusades (Bush's misstep in using the word on September 12 when describing our plans to get the terrorists didn't help - "Crusade" has no religious conotation in America, but it still is a loaded word in the Muslim world). It would behoove us to turn the oilfields over ASAP for appearances.

In reality, it does not matter who runs the oilfields since we all know that no matter who is pumping the oil, the main customers will be Western Europe, Japan and the USA. Those same oil companies and service companies (Halleburton, for example) will be working on those oil fields no matter who is selling the oil since it takes technical skills that are rare in the Middle East and not many Western companies have the ability and reach to effectively work in Iraq.

Oh - and the comment that follows that you wrote is absolutely true and I think we should really re-think those policies when kinks do develop in the delivery system: XANTHOR -"Price spikes are also due to the specific grades of gasoline required by local regulations (California and the Chicago area are examples) and supplies of those grades."

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]